William Dembski admits to being a literal YEC.

Rumraket · #1 by **Rumraket** » Oct 21, 2010 12:48 pm

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/are_we_at_all_surprised.php

But, ID has nothing to do with creationism and the people peddling ID have no religious motivations for doing so. C'mon guys, why don't you believe it?

Shrunk · #2 by **Shrunk** » Oct 21, 2010 1:15 pm

More discussion at Panda's Thumb. The relevant quote from Dembski:

In writing The End of Christianity today, I would also underscore three points: (1) As a biblical inerrantist, I accept the full verbal inspiration of the Bible and the conventional authorship of the books of the Bible. Thus, in particular, I accept Mosaic authorship of Genesis (and of the Pentateuch) and reject the Documentary Hypothesis. (2) Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. (3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors....

(I)n a brief section on Genesis 4-11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part. Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6-9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.

As noted by the commentator there, Dembki's renunciation of his previous position seems to be largely due to the fact that his job at Southwestern Seminary was threatened by his heretical Old Earth Creationist views (the "old earth" part being the problem, not the "creationist" part) . Even so, I think this is further evidence that the wheels are falling off the ID bandwagon. Clearly Dembski no longer sees it as in his best interest to keep up the charade that creationism is a scientific idea and has thrown his lot in with the religious fundamentalists.

rJD · #3 by **rJD** » Oct 21, 2010 1:23 pm

Shrunk wrote:Clearly Dembski no longer sees it as in his best interest to keep up the charade that creationism is a scientific idea and has thrown his lot in with the religious fundamentalists.

The cognitive dissonance probably just got too involved for him to handle any more. Acting as a grade 2 fucktard passing himself off as being rational, whilst actually being a grade 1 fucktard, only pretending to be a grade 2 fucktard passing himself off as being rational just got a bit too much, even for a YECer.

Mononoke · #4 by **Mononoke** » Oct 21, 2010 1:33 pm

The tragedy here is that this guy is ridiculously qualified

Animavore · #5 by **Animavore** » Oct 21, 2010 1:34 pm

I thought he was a mathematician?

Shrunk · #6 by **Shrunk** » Oct 21, 2010 1:37 pm

Animavore wrote:I thought he was a mathematician?

According to Wiki he also has degrees in psychology, theology and philosophy. Just further evidence that you can have all the degrees in the world and still be an absolute fuckwit.

Animavore · #7 by **Animavore** » Oct 21, 2010 1:38 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Animavore wrote:I thought he was a mathematician?

According to Wiki he also has degrees in psychology, theology and philosophy. Just further evidence that you can have all the degrees in the world and still be an absolute fuckwit.

Yeah but Mononoke said the sad thing is that he's ridiculously qualified but he actually has no qualifications in the relevant areas.

Calilasseia · #8 by **Calilasseia** » Oct 21, 2010 1:39 pm

Whichever way you look at this, Dembski's fucked. Because there are just two possibilities as I see it:

[1] He was lying in the past about being an OEC, was a YEC all along, and lied about this in order to push the duplicitous "teach the synthetic pseudo-controversy that doesn't actually exist amongst real scientists" bullshit in order to try and slip under the Establishment Clause radar;

[2] He was telling the truth in the past about being an OEC, and is now lying about being a YEC in order to keep tenure at an establishment that enforces doctrinal conformity, because he doesn't want to lose his lucrative income.

The fact that he's been making all the right sounding noises about Jeebus, required to keep his paymasters happy for some years before this announcement, makes me think that [1] is the most likely scenario.

Shrunk · #9 by **Shrunk** » Oct 21, 2010 1:42 pm

Calilasseia wrote: [2] He was telling the truth in the past about being an OEC, and is now lying about being a YEC in order to keep tenure at an establishment that enforces doctrinal conformity, because he doesn't want to lose his lucrative income.

The term "tenure" cannot be said to exist at an "establishment that enforces doctrinal conformity." Just one more way in which religious education is not education at all, but a means of propagating ignorance.

rJD · **#10** by **rJD** » Oct 21, 2010 1:45 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Whichever way you look at this, Dembski's fucked. Because there are just two possibilities as I see it:
...

You do have to allow at least the theoretical third possibility, that he really has changed his (somewhat selectively applied) mind.

(edited to allow that Dembski obviously isn't stupid in every area)

Mononoke · **#11** by **Mononoke** » Oct 21, 2010 1:48 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
The fact that he's been making all the right sounding noises about Jeebus, required to keep his paymasters happy for some years before this announcement, makes me think that [1] is the most likely scenario.

what if he's just there for the money.

Rumraket · **#12** by **Rumraket** » Oct 21, 2010 2:05 pm

Mononoke wrote:The tragedy here is that this guy is ridiculously qualified

In multiple areas only very mildly related to biology, geology, biochemistry and physical cosmology.

Mononoke · **#13** by **Mononoke** » Oct 21, 2010 2:18 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Mononoke wrote:The tragedy here is that this guy is ridiculously qualified

In multiple areas only very mildly related to biology, geology, biochemistry and physical cosmology.

true but it's impressive. Or at least I find it impressive

Rumraket · **#14** by **Rumraket** » Oct 21, 2010 2:27 pm

True, I don't doubt for a moment that Dembski is an intelligent or even hardworking man. Just like I don't doubt that he is completely delusional.

Actually, I want to take some of that back. I'm not entirely convinced he's delusional. I suspect he might be be highly cynical and possibly have psychopathic(sociopathic?) tendencies that allow and compel him to exploit the uneducated and the gullible for his own financial gains.

Mononoke · **#15** by **Mononoke** » Oct 21, 2010 2:31 pm

Rumraket wrote:I suspect he might be be highly cynical and possibly have psychopathic(sociopathic?) tendencies that allow and compel him to exploit the uneducated and the gullible for his own financial gains.

I'm begining to like him :lol:

John P. M. · **#16** by **John P. M.** » Oct 21, 2010 2:44 pm

I've been a creationist of the same ilk myself, so I should know the answer to this, but...

Why do people elevate these ancient scriptures to anything above the level of myth with some history thrown in?
I mean - why put it above everything else as the Authority, before any discourse even starts?

Because some of the authors insist that it's the word of God?

It boggles the mind.

Calilasseia · **#17** by **Calilasseia** » Oct 21, 2010 2:58 pm

John P. M. wrote:I've been a creationist of the same ilk myself, so I should know the answer to this, but...

Why do people elevate these ancient scriptures to anything above the level of myth with some history thrown in?
I mean - why put it above everything else as the Authority, before any discourse even starts?

Because some of the authors insist that it's the word of God?

It boggles the mind.

Indeed, relevant criticism of this view I have posted previously, namely here. You'll find a tangential but still relevant criticism connected thereto here.

Shrunk · **#18** by **Shrunk** » Oct 21, 2010 3:04 pm

rJD wrote: You do have to allow at least the theoretical third possibility, that he really has changed his (somewhat selectively applied) mind.

In that case, he should be able to articulate the reasons that caused him to change his opinion, apart from the fact that he would have lost his job if he didn't. I'm not saying he hasn't done so. I really have no interest in reading any of his writings to find out.

rJD · **#19** by **rJD** » Oct 21, 2010 3:16 pm

Shrunk wrote:
rJD wrote: You do have to allow at least the theoretical third possibility, that he really has changed his (somewhat selectively applied) mind.

In that case, he should be able to articulate the reasons that caused him to change his opinion, apart from the fact that he would have lost his job if he didn't.

Does he really need reasons? I can't believe there were many rational causes for any of his religious beliefs so far, and we know that a waterfall is all the argument that some people need. And then there's Rumraket's 4th possibility, that he's never been genuine from day 1, and still isn't.

I'm not saying he hasn't done so. I really have no interest in reading any of his writings to find out.

Nor me.

Shrunk · **#20** by **Shrunk** » Oct 21, 2010 3:22 pm

rJD wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
rJD wrote: You do have to allow at least the theoretical third possibility, that he really has changed his (somewhat selectively applied) mind.

In that case, he should be able to articulate the reasons that caused him to change his opinion, apart from the fact that he would have lost his job if he didn't.

Does he really need reasons? I can't believe there were many rational causes for any of his religious beliefs so far, and we know that a waterfall is all the argument that some people need.

If he wants to avoid accusations that all he is doing is compromising his beliefs for his own financial benefit then, yes, he has to give reasons. Not that he necessarily cares. Nor does anyone else, I suppose. We already know he's a lying, unprincipled asswipe. This just further confirms it.

William Dembski admits to being a literal YEC.

William Dembski admits to being a literal YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a litteral YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a litteral YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a litteral YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a litteral YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a litteral YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a litteral YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a litteral YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a litteral YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a litteral YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a litteral YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a litteral YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a litteral YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a literal YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a literal YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a literal YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a literal YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a litteral YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a litteral YEC.

Re: William Dembski admits to being a litteral YEC.

Who is online